<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">..you guys used stats, others thought about it, and considered other sides to this issue unlike you .</div> ...Oh, is that what you guys are doing right now- ''considering''? I've been waiting like a week on this thread for yall to say something knew pertinent to the conversation. And the other one is getting way outta hand with yall discrediting every kind of piece of statstical Fact, and yet providing nothing on your sides but opinion. <u>Fact </u>Lemme define my definition or the definition I was raised with. By fact I dont mean,"well Lebron is way bigger than Kobe so if he's better by a little bit it still doesnt mean anything" and I also dont mean something like " well <font color=""Red"">Jordan's</font> foot size is 1/2 a size bigger than Kobe so he's standing an inch closer on his freethrows-- hence the better percentage". As soon as yall provide some kind of facts to back up what you're saying then this debate and this forum can regain some legitimacy.
All I know is that the media and fans are all on Lebrons nuts, the way they were with Kobe a few years ago. The arguements on who is better will go on and on and will never be settled. I've learned that now after reading all these Lebron vs. Kobe / Lebron vs. Jordan / Jordan vs. Kobe threads. My favorite player is Kobe Bryant. Doesnt matter if he is less althletic, is a ballhog, is a leader, is not a leader, has bigger feet, is only 6'6, is 10'1. Kobe's legacy will live on long after he retires, and Laker fans appriciate every moment he steps on the basketball court. Amen. Oh and btw, Im still waiting on Lebron to play some real defense.
In a recent world wide survey of who is the most entertaining athelete to watch, LeBron ranked #1 out of top 10 list. That is pretty impressive seeing as how he's only finished his 3rd year.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Lostmyluggage:</div><div class="quote_post">In a recent world wide survey of who is the most entertaining athelete to watch, LeBron ranked #1 out of top 10 list. That is pretty impressive seeing as how he's only finished his 3rd year.</div> Does anybody care about that, really? So what if he's impressive to watch. And where are your sources? I find Elton Brand impressive to watch, 95% of NBA fans don't. He has a boring style of play, but for me, he's fun to watch because he's just now cracking his potential to be a dominant big man.
Lebron is the most entertaining athelete to watch??? All he does is go strong to the paint, do some travellings and make the final layup. I don't find it impressive. All he has is his strong body and speed. Skill-wise, Kobe > Lebron for now for sure and at least for 2 or 3 more years. He needs to improve on his jumpshots and defense, but he is still very young.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">jordan, kobe, charles barkley, karl malone, and dennis rodman all became great despite having no real advantage physically.</div> LMAO..........just stop homie, all those dudes you listed were blessed physically.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post"> You are penalizing LeBron, and you're rewarding players like AI. It's quite obvious. Don't even deny it.</div> Of course i am, that is what my post said. If AI's skillset was in lebron james body, he would be out the this world amazing. he would be scoring at least 5-8 points more per game. If Lebrons skillset was in AI's body, he would be a descent player. he would be a good penetrater with a very shaky jumper. not amazing by any means. that is what my point is. he would be poor at d and get an average amount of assists. and if you put kg's skillset in any player they would still be very good. he plays great d, and is a very good shooter. As for rebounds. i rarely see lebron predict where the ball is going to go, goes there box out anyone there and get the board. he jumps up and grabs em when they are close. Guys like barkley, rodman, russell, and kg all know where to position themselves to get lots of boards. sure kg and russell where built for rebounding, but they postition themselves very well.
TheFreshPrince, effectiveness = skills + physical abilities My concern is effectiveness (i.e. actual value a player brings to his team). You seem to be more concerned with skills. If you're a coach, are you going to play your most skilled lineup or your most effective lineup?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">TheFreshPrince, effectiveness = skills + physical abilities My concern is effectiveness (i.e. actual value a player brings to his team). You seem to be more concerned with skills. If you're a coach, are you going to play your most skilled lineup or your most effective lineup?</div> Bu this is a who is better thread, not effective. If this was who is the most effective then guys like shq who shoot 60% would win every time. i see kobe and mj as more skilled players than lebron, therefor better. The Dream, charles barkley is a physically gifted pf. he is 6'4" and rodman is 6'6". my point with mj and kobe was that they are the same size as just about any other sg now adays. like i said earlier. both of these guys started out as very skinny sg's that were relatively tall.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheBlackMamba:</div><div class="quote_post">Does anybody care about that, really? So what if he's impressive to watch. And where are your sources? I find Elton Brand impressive to watch, 95% of NBA fans don't. He has a boring style of play, but for me, he's fun to watch because he's just now cracking his potential to be a dominant big man.</div> Who is this "anybody" your speaking about when you say "does anybody care about that, really"? I can assure you that the people you speak of are in the minority none the less. Anyways, here you go: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedi...content.15.html
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Lostmyluggage:</div><div class="quote_post">Who is this "anybody" your speaking about when you say "does anybody care about that, really"? I can assure you that the people you speak of are in the minority none the less. Anyways, here you go: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedi...content.15.html</div> Tiger Woods is also number two on this list. man when he hits his drives right in the middle of the fairway, i cant help but stand up and scream.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">Bu this is a who is better thread, not effective. If this was who is the most effective then guys like shq who shoot 60% would win every time. i see kobe and mj as more skilled players than lebron, therefor better.</div> Ok, let's try this again. A 3 foot midget could, in theory, be a more skilled player than Shaquille O'neal. But to say the midget is a greater player is absurd. Therefore, defining "is better" to mean "is more skilled" is quite obviously wrong. The general question "who's better?" is actually asking "who has the greater positive impact on winning". When I refer to "effectiveness", this is precisely what I'm talking about. Being a great player requires skill, of course, but that's not all. It also requires physical gifts. Sometimes, a less physically gifted player can become great because he has a high skill-level (eg. Larry Bird). And sometimes less skilled player can become great because he has immense physical ability (eg. Shaq). Skill and physical ability go together in making a player great. To make it more explicit: How good you are = Your Skills + Your Physical Ability
^^ I'll agree with that, but i still see litle guys like AI as better players just because he is 5'11" 165. nobody that small has ever been great. There have been plenty of great 6'4"-6'8" players. i just see ai as a rare and very special player.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">^^ I'll agree with that, but i still see litle guys like AI as better players just because he is 5'11" 165. nobody that small has ever been great. There have been plenty of great 6'4"-6'8" players. i just see ai as a rare and very special player.</div> His size makes him more rare. It makes his feats more impressive. What it does not do is make him more valuable on the court. So your statement that AI's size makes him a better player is nonsensical. All your posts suggest that you have not grasped the fundemental concept of what it means for one player to be better than another. I mean, you essentially just responded to "2 + 2 = 4" with "I agree with that, but I still think 2 + 2 = 5".
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">His size makes him more rare. It makes his feats more impressive. What it does not do is make him more valuable on the court. So your statement that AI's size makes him a better player is nonsensical. All your posts suggest that you have not grasped the fundemental concept of what it means for one player to be better than another. I mean, you essentially just responded to "2 + 2 = 4" with "I agree with that, but I still think 2 + 2 = 5".</div> The impressive factor is what does it for me. i am amazed by what ai can do at his size. i expect lebron to do the things he does, because of his size. and the media hype just bugs me, i mean he cant play defense, and is a poor shooter. all i am saying is that your post makes sense to you, but player vs. player is an opinion question. not everything is 2+2=4. there are things that you have to put together that arent just stats. i feel that lebrons size gives him a distinct advantage, so his skills arent as good as other smaller players. and ok, what is the fundamental concept of what it means for one player to be better than the other? it's not like all of your post are complete facts with no opinions or anything. you think that effectiveness is what makes a great player, well then is bill russell the best player ever? he has 11 rings. wow mj could only get 6, that is barely half of what russell got.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post"> and ok, what is the fundamental concept of what it means for one player to be better than the other? it's not like all of your post are complete facts with no opinions or anything. you think that effectiveness is what makes a great player, well then is bill russell the best player ever? he has 11 rings. wow mj could only get 6, that is barely half of what russell got.</div> You can't measure the effectiveness of a player simply by his championships. Teams wins championships, not individuals. The effectiveness of a player is determined by his contributions towards helping his team win games. Kevin Garnett was a very effective player last season, because he did a ton on the court to help his teams win games. Problem was, the rest of the team was so bad it didn't translate into actual wins. That shouldn't take away from his effectiveness. Being better at any sport, by definition, means being more able to accomplish the goal of that sport. Take tennis. The goal is to win 3 out or 5 sets, say. So, the better tennis player is the one who's better at achieving that goal. It doesn't matter if you're achieving that goal while weighing 100 lbs or 500 lbs. What matters is your ability to achieve that goal of winning the most sets. When I use the word "effective", this is all I'm referring to. By definition, "effectiveness" at a sport is how good you are at accomplishing the goal defined by the sport. In basketball, the goal for a player is to maximize the sum of his contributions to the team, both offensively and defensively. It's not to make the most impressive contributions, or to show the greatest amount of skill. That's why when I'm comparing two players ("who's better?"), I'm only looking at their contributions. If you're picking a player to be on your team with the goal of winning games, that's all that matters. So, when you say LeBron isn't that great a player because he is naturally gifted, you're essentially saying that a player should be rated not by how he helps his team wins, but rather by how impressive he is. That's how you make a list of your favorite players or the players you admire the most. It's not a how you make a list of the best players.
Hey yall, forget all the bs. Lets have everybody come back to this thread and treat it similar to a court case; after all the info and the arguments and evidence provided on each side what is the conclusion? Who is better Lebron or Kobe. And no it's not just a matter of opinion-- when you're dealing with real people who are very different persons in every way, as well as being different in the game of basketball>> and you measure those people using a specific unified criteria -- our criteria being whos "better" as we know it to be defined ( effectiveness towards winning and producing)--> there can be only one correct answer. Whos better Lebron or Kobe?
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The Dream, charles barkley is a physically gifted pf. he is 6'4" and rodman is 6'6". my point with mj and kobe was that they are the same size as just about any other sg now adays. like i said earlier. both of these guys started out as very skinny sg's that were relatively tall.</div> Yes Barkley was undersized, but both men were physically gifted......a lot of people seem to forget that barkley was a lot more mobile and had pretty good leaping ability when he was younger........and Rodman was 6'8, and was physically gifted also............with that being said, you can't take away from a player just because he has an advantage over someone physically...........it's irrelevant. EDIT I'm not trying to go all out on Kobe and not act like Lebron doesn't have his fanboys, but on this board and in reality, it seems like the only reason Kobe fans can come up with is "he's just better".....lol......I swear I'm talkin to one of my homies last night on the phone, saying how it is possible that D. Wade and Bron are better than Tmac and Kobe....and his response was "no..................shut up........are you serious"..........so I asked him, why am I so crazy for saying that?.........his response was "because they're just better".
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting THE DREAM:</div><div class="quote_post">Yes Barkley was undersized, but both men were physically gifted......a lot of people seem to forget that barkley was a lot more mobile and had pretty good leaping ability when he was younger........and Rodman was 6'8, and was physically gifted also............with that being said, you can't take away from a player just because he has an advantage over someone physically...........it's irrelevant. EDIT I'm not trying to go all out on Kobe and not act like Lebron doesn't have his fanboys, but on this board and in reality, it seems like the only reason Kobe fans can come up with is "he's just better".....lol......I swear I'm talkin to one of my homies last night on the phone, saying how it is possible that D. Wade and Bron are better than Tmac and Kobe....and his response was "no..................shut up........are you serious"..........so I asked him, why am I so crazy for saying that?.........his response was "because they're just better".</div> Rodman was actually 6'6" that is what he has told many people. his listed hieght is 6'8". just like kg, he is more like 7'0" 7'1" but he is listed at 6'11" And since this thread is better, kobe is better than bron. he is a better shooter, scorer, defender, clutch performer, and defender. Durvasa, ^^That is how i decide who is a better player. who is better at certain parts of the game, and then whoever has the most, or most important categories win. and i have to factor size into that. if 5'11" 165 lb AI can score more per game thatn 6'8" 240 lb bron than ai is obviously a much more skilled scorer. same with all the other stats. if shaq can average like 9-10 boards a game but ben wallace can average 12. then ben is obviously a much better rebounder, but if yao averaging like 9-12 you could argue it between shaq and him.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post"> Durvasa, ^^That is how i decide who is a better player. who is better at certain parts of the game, and then whoever has the most, or most important categories win. and i have to factor size into that. if 5'11" 165 lb AI can score more per game thatn 6'8" 240 lb bron than ai is obviously a much more skilled scorer. same with all the other stats. if shaq can average like 9-10 boards a game but ben wallace can average 12. then ben is obviously a much better rebounder, but if yao averaging like 9-12 you could argue it between shaq and him.</div> Ok. When you say "better" ... better at what? What does it mean to be good at basketball? (1) you're good to the extent you help a team win. (the more you do to help a team win, the better you are) (2) you're good at basketball if you are "skilled" (3) you're good to the exten you help you're team win plus the amount of you skill you have The way I look at it (as well as any one actually interested in constructing a good team), (1) is ultimately what matters. (2) is only important as a means to (1). What you seem to be considering is (3). This doesn't make much practical sense to me. In fact, doing so would skew the results, since you're essentially "double counting" skill in the final assessment (since the extent you help a team win is, in part, determined by skill). Again, the goal of basketball at the team level is to win. At the player level, the goal is do as much as possible to help your team win. So, it stands to reason that the best players are the ones you can count on to do the most to help a team win. Skill is important only as a means to contributing to team success.
